Defense advocates objected Thursday to an amendment in a bill designed to remove an unconstitutional bail statute.
The Nevada Supreme Court threw out a statute requiring a defendant to show good cause to be released on bail, saying it violates that person’s constitutional rights. The ruling also overturned other provisions, making it clear that the default should be the least restrictive option compatible with public safety. In many cases that would mean release without imposing bail, conditions or restrictions.
Sen. Melanie Scheible, D-Las Vegas, who authored the original bill, said it was designed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling and that a prosecutor must show by “clear and convincing evidence” that bail conditions or monetary bail is necessary in the case.
But the amendment added on the Senate side says if a firearm was present in the commission of a crime, the defendant must overcome a presumption that the presence of a firearm would prevent the release without significant bail or imposed conditions.
That drew opposition from public defenders, the ACLU and defense attorneys who said it effectively takes the original version of SB369 backward several steps.
Holly Welborn of the ACLU said the amendment, “arguably shifts the burden back” on to the defendant.
Clark County Public Defender John Piro said the Supreme Court ruling, “placed the burden on the prosecution because liberty is the norm.” He said that amendment, “takes us back several steps.”
Jim Hoffman of the Nevada attorneys for criminal justice said the firearm amendment wouldn’t just capture cases where a firearm was used to shoot someone. He said the requirement could be applied if the defendant had a firearm in his pocket.
Defense counsel and other advocates have long argued that the inability of many people to post bail too often results in the loss of a job, an apartment and other negative impacts on a person who, at that point, hasn’t been convicted of anything.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee took no action on SB369.
